Q: Purpose of Pluronic F-68 in media — In mammalian cell culture, Pluronic F-68 is typically added as what?

Introduction: Mammalian cells are highly sensitive to hydrodynamic stress, particularly at gas–liquid interfaces. Pluronic F-68 (Poloxamer 188) is a standard media supplement used to mitigate such shear-related damage. The question asks for its principal role. Given Data / Assumptions: Suspension culture with aeration and agitation. Typical F-68 concentrations in the 0.05–1.0 g/L range. Goal is to preserve viability and productivity. Concept / Approach: As a non-ionic surfactant, Pluronic F-68 adsorbs at interfaces and reduces direct cell contact with bubbles and moving interfaces, thereby lowering the damaging stresses that occur during bubble formation and bursting. It is not a nutrient and does not directly increase oxygen transfer coefficients like kLa; its benefit is protective, not nutritive or flocculating. Step-by-Step Solution: Identify the damage pathway (bubble attachment, surface rupture).Recognize surfactant-mediated protection via interfacial modification.Conclude the correct functional category: shear protectant. Verification / Alternative check: Comparative runs with and without F-68 show higher viable cell densities and reduced LDH release under identical aeration/agitation, confirming a protective effect rather than enhanced mass transfer. Why Other Options Are Wrong: (a) Not a nutrient; does not supply carbon, nitrogen, or vitamins. (c) It may indirectly influence mass transfer by altering foam, but it does not directly raise kLa as an oxygen-transfer additive. (d) False because (a) and (c) are incorrect. (e) It is not a coagulant; aggregation would hinder oxygen and nutrient delivery. Common Pitfalls: Confusing F-68 with silicone antifoams or with nutrient supplements; attributing higher titers to improved kLa rather than improved survival. Final Answer: A shear protectant (non-ionic surfactant) to reduce bubble- and agitation-related damage

Q: Small-scale turbulence — Which factors influence the Kolmogorov micro-eddy (smallest eddy) size in a stirred bioreactor?

Introduction: The Kolmogorov length scale characterizes the smallest eddies in turbulent flow where viscous dissipation dominates. In bioprocessing, matching or exceeding cell size by these eddies can influence shear sensitivity. The question asks which variables govern this micro-scale. Given Data / Assumptions: Turbulent regime or near-transitional with appreciable energy dissipation. Newtonian approximation for concept; non-Newtonian effects change effective viscosity. Homogeneous temperature and composition. Concept / Approach: Kolmogorov length scale eta scales approximately with (nu^3/epsilon)^(1/4), where nu is kinematic viscosity and epsilon is the local energy dissipation rate. Thus, increasing power input (via higher speed or certain impellers) shrinks eta, while higher viscosity enlarges it. Impeller geometry and size map into epsilon distribution throughout the tank. Step-by-Step Solution: Relate stirrer speed and impeller choice to power number and P/V, which set epsilon.Recognize that nu explicitly enters Kolmogorov scaling, so liquid properties matter.Conclude that speed, fluid properties, and impeller design jointly determine micro-eddy size. Verification / Alternative check: Use correlations for P = Np * rho * N^3 * D^5 and estimate epsilon ≈ P/(rho * V). Insert nu and epsilon into eta ≈ (nu^3/epsilon)^(1/4) to see trends consistent with the qualitative answer. Why Other Options Are Wrong: (a), (b), (c) each omit other influential factors; all act together. (e) Tank volume alone does not set eta; local dissipation and viscosity are decisive. Common Pitfalls: Assuming a single global eta when dissipation is nonuniform; ignoring non-Newtonian viscosity in cell culture broths; over-relying on average P/V without considering impeller zone hotspots. Final Answer: All of these

Q: Mode of action — The best-described action of Pluronic F-68 (non-ionic surfactant) in a mammalian cell-culture medium is that it primarily...

Introduction: Poloxamers such as Pluronic F-68 are amphiphilic block copolymers. Their amphiphilicity makes them surface-active, altering interfacial phenomena that are central to shear-related injury in mammalian cell cultures. The question seeks the primary mechanistic category for F-68's protective effect. Given Data / Assumptions: Aerated, agitated suspension of shear-sensitive cells. F-68 at standard concentrations. No nutrient limitation in the base medium. Concept / Approach: By adsorbing at gas–liquid and cell–liquid interfaces, F-68 changes surface tension and interfacial rheology. This reduces the probability and severity of damaging events during bubble formation and collapse and decreases cell adhesion to interfaces. The mode is interfacial modification, not nutrition, coagulation, or antimicrobial action. Step-by-Step Solution: Identify the interface-centric damage pathway in aerated cultures.Map F-68's amphiphilic adsorption to reduced interfacial stress transmission.Conclude that interfacial property modification is the dominant protective mechanism. Verification / Alternative check: Lower LDH release and higher viability in sparged reactors with F-68 vs controls support a protective interfacial mechanism. Foam behavior changes also indicate surface-activity as the operative mode. Why Other Options Are Wrong: (b) F-68 is not metabolized as a nutrient source. (c) and (d) would hinder suspension health and mass transfer. (e) It has no antibiotic function. Common Pitfalls: Equating F-68 with classic antifoams or antibiotics; ignoring that too high a concentration may affect membrane interactions undesirably. Final Answer: acts on the surface properties of the cells and the culture medium, modifying interfaces to reduce shear damage.

Q: Boundary-Layer Flow Over a Flat Plate — For laminar flow, the local Reynolds number threshold Re_x should be less than approximately what value?

Introduction: The transition from laminar to turbulent boundary-layer flow over a smooth flat plate occurs when the local Reynolds number, Re_x = (U * x) / ν, exceeds a critical range. Recognizing the typical threshold helps in heat-mass transfer correlations and drag predictions. Given Data / Assumptions: Smooth flat plate in a low-disturbance free stream. Local Reynolds number definition Re_x = U * x / nu, where U is free-stream velocity, x is distance from leading edge, and nu is kinematic viscosity. Typical engineering threshold values are used. Concept / Approach: For many practical cases, laminar flow persists up to Re_x of the order of 5 × 10^5 (sometimes cited between 3 × 10^5 and 1 × 10^6 depending on surface roughness and freestream turbulence). Below this value, boundary-layer assumptions and laminar correlations apply for skin friction and convection coefficients. Step-by-Step Solution: Recall the typical transition criterion for flat-plate boundary layers.Map choices to feasible Reynolds numbers (dimensionless) versus lengths (with units).Select the dimensionless threshold near 5 × 10^5 for laminar validity.Reject options that are not dimensionless or orders-of-magnitude inconsistent. Verification / Alternative check: Empirical data and classic correlations (e.g., Blasius laminar solutions) are applied up to Re_x around several 10^5 before transition and intermittency effects dominate. Why Other Options Are Wrong: A and D: Provide lengths, not Reynolds numbers. B: Far too small; would predict transition almost immediately. E: 5 × 10^3 is too low for typical clean flat-plate transition. Common Pitfalls: Confusing local Reynolds number Re_x with global Re based on plate length; also mixing units into a dimensionless parameter. Final Answer: 5 × 10^5

Q: Newtonian Fluids — Which statement best describes viscosity behavior during mixing at constant temperature?

Introduction: A Newtonian fluid has a constant viscosity at a given temperature and pressure, independent of shear rate and mixing time. This is a foundational concept used in pump sizing, pipe flow calculations, and reactor design for simple liquids like water and many light oils. Given Data / Assumptions: Temperature and composition are constant. Shear rates fall within the continuum regime where Newtonian behavior applies. No time-dependent structural changes occur in the liquid. Concept / Approach: Newtonian behavior is defined by a linear relationship between shear stress tau and shear rate gamma_dot: tau = mu * gamma_dot, with constant mu. As such, varying the impeller speed (changing shear rate) changes shear stress proportionally, but does not change mu. Time under shear does not alter mu either. Step-by-Step Solution: Identify the defining property: constant viscosity independent of shear rate and time.Relate to mixing: increasing power changes shear rate, but not mu for Newtonian fluids.Exclude structural build-up or breakdown because Newtonian fluids lack microstructure that evolves with shear.Therefore select the option stating constancy with time and power input. Verification / Alternative check: Viscometry with concentric cylinders shows straight-line tau versus gamma_dot passing through the origin for Newtonian liquids; slope equals mu and is independent of the test duration at constant temperature. Why Other Options Are Wrong: B, C, D: Describe non-Newtonian behaviors (shear-thickening, shear-thinning, time dependence). E: Blade-passage pressure fluctuations do not change the intrinsic viscosity. Common Pitfalls: Confusing operational power requirements (which do change with speed) with the material property viscosity (which does not for Newtonian fluids). Final Answer: Viscosity remains essentially constant with time and power input (independent of shear history).

Q: Classifying Complex Behavior — If a liquid is both dilatant (shear-thickening) and rheopectic (time-dependent thickening), how does its viscosity respond to speed and to time under shear?

Introduction: Some complex fluids can thicken both with higher instantaneous shear rate (dilatancy) and with sustained shear over time (rheopexy). Understanding the combined effect is vital for mixing scale-up, pump selection, and quality control to avoid over-torquing or process upsets. Given Data / Assumptions: Dilatant behavior: viscosity rises with shear rate. Rheopectic behavior: viscosity rises with time under constant shear. Composition and temperature are stable during observation. Concept / Approach: When both behaviors are present, the fluid responds to two independent axes: rate and time. Increasing impeller speed elevates shear rate, raising viscosity immediately (dilatancy). Holding the same speed for longer continues to build structure or alignment that further increases viscosity (rheopexy). The net effect is an upward trend with both variables. Step-by-Step Solution: Hold speed constant and observe viscosity versus time: it rises (rheopexy).Hold time constant and increase speed: viscosity rises (dilatancy).Combine effects: both axes contribute positively to apparent viscosity.Therefore, choose the option stating increases with speed and time. Verification / Alternative check: Rheometer protocols that include rate sweeps and time holds at fixed rates will show increasing curves in both dimensions for such materials. Why Other Options Are Wrong: A, C, D: Each contradicts at least one of the two stated behaviors. E: Ignores rate and time effects central to the classification. Common Pitfalls: Mislabeling thixotropy (time-dependent thinning) as rheopecty. Always confirm definitions before interpreting plant data. Final Answer: Increases with stirring speed and increases with mixing time.

Q: Constitutive Behavior — In which class of fluids is the shear stress–shear rate relation non-linear over practical ranges?

Introduction: Designing mixers, pumps, and pipelines requires knowing how shear stress tau depends on shear rate gamma_dot. Newtonian fluids have tau = mu * gamma_dot (a straight line through the origin), whereas non-Newtonian fluids deviate from linearity, often dramatically, affecting power draw and pressure drop. Given Data / Assumptions: Continuum regime with isothermal conditions. Definition: Newtonian if viscosity is constant and tau proportional to gamma_dot. Non-Newtonian if viscosity depends on rate and/or time. Concept / Approach: Non-Newtonian classes include shear-thinning, shear-thickening, Bingham plastic, Herschel–Bulkley, thixotropic, and rheopectic behaviors. Each yields a non-linear tau–gamma_dot curve or incorporates a yield stress, invalidating a single constant viscosity description across operating ranges. Step-by-Step Solution: Recognize that Newtonian relationship is linear by definition.Identify non-Newtonian models where tau depends on gamma_dot non-linearly.Conclude non-Newtonian fluids exhibit the non-linear relation of interest.Select the option explicitly naming non-Newtonian fluids. Verification / Alternative check: Rheometer measurements for paints, ketchup, polymer melts, and cell broths show curved tau–gamma_dot plots, unlike water or mineral oils at moderate rates. Why Other Options Are Wrong: A: Newtonian is linear by definition. C and D: Incorrect generalizations. E: Gas behavior is not directly a constitutive fluid class and under most laminar conditions ideal gases behave Newtonian. Common Pitfalls: Using a single viscosity number for complex fluids; always report the shear rate (and time history if relevant). Final Answer: Non-Newtonian fluids

Q: Bioreactor Hydrodynamics — During aerobic culture in stirred tanks, which flow regime is generally preferred to maximize gas–liquid mass transfer and mixing without excessive stratification?

Introduction: Aerobic bioprocesses require efficient oxygen transfer and uniform nutrient distribution. The hydrodynamic regime strongly influences kLa, bubble dispersion, and mixing time. This question targets the preferred regime in stirred tank reactors (STRs) for aerobic cultures. Given Data / Assumptions: STR with properly sized impellers and baffles. Viscosity within typical microbial broth ranges (not extreme non-Newtonian gel). Shear sensitivity is considered but not overriding. Concept / Approach: Turbulent flow enhances eddy transport and bubble breakup, increasing interfacial area and oxygen transfer rates. Baffles suppress vortexing and improve axial and radial mixing. Operating in a turbulent regime (high Reynolds number) shortens mixing times and reduces concentration gradients compared to laminar or poorly mixed transient regimes. Step-by-Step Solution: Relate oxygen transfer requirements to turbulence: higher interfacial area and renewal rates.Note the role of baffles: prevent swirling, promote top-to-bottom turnover.Recognize that laminar regimes cause stratification and long mixing times.Conclude that controlled turbulence is preferred for aerobic cultivation. Verification / Alternative check: Empirical correlations for kLa increase with power input per volume and superficial gas velocity, both facilitated under turbulent flow. Many industrial STRs target turbulent conditions while limiting excessive shear to protect sensitive cells. Why Other Options Are Wrong: A: Laminar flow yields poor gas dispersion. B: Intermittent mixing cannot maintain uniform oxygen levels. D: Regimes are not equally suitable. E: Plug flow does not describe STR mixing and is unsuitable for uniform aeration in tanks. Common Pitfalls: Equating “more turbulence” with “better” without considering shear damage; optimization balances mass transfer and cell viability. Final Answer: Turbulent flow with adequate impeller design and baffles

Q: Turbulence Micro-Scales — How does the Kolmogorov eddy size vary with impeller speed in a stirred tank?

Introduction: The Kolmogorov micro-scale characterizes the size of the smallest dissipative eddies in turbulent flow. In mixing, its magnitude influences potential shear damage to delicate materials such as cells or polymer structures. Understanding how it responds to speed helps set safe operating windows. Given Data / Assumptions: Turbulent regime in a baffled stirred tank. Increasing impeller speed increases specific energy dissipation. Fluid properties (density, viscosity) are constant. Concept / Approach: The Kolmogorov length scale eta scales with (nu^3 / epsilon)^(1/4), where nu is kinematic viscosity and epsilon is energy dissipation rate per mass. As impeller speed rises, epsilon increases, so eta decreases. Thus, higher speeds generate smaller dissipative structures and potentially stronger local velocity gradients. Step-by-Step Solution: Recognize relationship: eta ∝ (1 / epsilon)^(1/4).Note that epsilon grows with impeller speed and power input per volume.Infer that eta decreases with increasing speed.Select the option stating a decrease in eddy size with speed. Verification / Alternative check: Power correlations (P = Np * rho * N^3 * D^5) imply higher N increases epsilon in the tank, leading to reduced eta. Measurements in mixing studies confirm smaller micro-scales at higher speeds. Why Other Options Are Wrong: A: Not constant; depends on epsilon. B: Opposite of correct trend. D: Never zero; finite even at low speeds. E: There is a clear dependence via energy dissipation. Common Pitfalls: Assuming micro-scale equals bubble size or impeller diameter; it is a turbulence property tied to dissipation, not a geometric feature. Final Answer: It decreases as stirrer speed increases (smaller dissipative eddies at higher energy dissipation).

Question 1

Shear-rate dependence — If the apparent viscosity of a fluid decreases as stirrer speed (shear rate) increases, what is the fluid type?

Accepted Answer

Introduction: Non-Newtonian fluids often show apparent viscosity changes with shear rate. Recognizing shear-thinning (pseudoplastic) behavior is critical for sizing pumps, predicting pressure drops, and selecting impellers for bioprocess media and polymer solutions. Given Data / Assumptions: Stirrer speed is a proxy for shear rate over a range of operation. Temperature and composition are constant. Observation concerns instantaneous rate dependence, not elapsed time at constant shear. Concept / Approach: Pseudoplastic fluids follow an apparent flow curve where viscosity decreases with increasing shear rate (e.g., power-law with n < 1). This arises from alignment of macromolecules or disruption of weak structures under shear. By contrast, dilatant fluids (n > 1) thicken as shear increases. Thixotropy and rheopexy describe time-dependent effects at roughly fixed shear, not the instantaneous rate dependence emphasized here. Step-by-Step Solution: Note the key: viscosity decreases as speed increases — hallmark of shear-thinning.Map to terminology: pseudoplastic = shear-thinning; dilatant = shear-thickening.Exclude time-dependent labels (thixotropy/rheopexy) and Newtonian constancy. Verification / Alternative check: Plot apparent viscosity vs shear rate on a rheometer; a downward slope confirms shear-thinning and fits a power-law model eta = K * gamma^(n-1) with n < 1. Why Other Options Are Wrong: Newtonian: viscosity independent of shear rate. Dilatant: predicts increasing viscosity with speed, opposite of observation. Thixotropic/Rheopectic: concern time effects at constant shear, not rate dependence. Common Pitfalls: Confusing time- and rate-dependent behaviors; interpreting aeration-induced temperature rise as shear-thinning; neglecting measurement dwell time in rheometry. Final Answer: Pseudoplastic (shear-thinning)

Question 2

Purpose of Pluronic F-68 in media — In mammalian cell culture, Pluronic F-68 is typically added as what?

Accepted Answer

Introduction: Mammalian cells are highly sensitive to hydrodynamic stress, particularly at gas–liquid interfaces. Pluronic F-68 (Poloxamer 188) is a standard media supplement used to mitigate such shear-related damage. The question asks for its principal role. Given Data / Assumptions: Suspension culture with aeration and agitation. Typical F-68 concentrations in the 0.05–1.0 g/L range. Goal is to preserve viability and productivity. Concept / Approach: As a non-ionic surfactant, Pluronic F-68 adsorbs at interfaces and reduces direct cell contact with bubbles and moving interfaces, thereby lowering the damaging stresses that occur during bubble formation and bursting. It is not a nutrient and does not directly increase oxygen transfer coefficients like kLa; its benefit is protective, not nutritive or flocculating. Step-by-Step Solution: Identify the damage pathway (bubble attachment, surface rupture).Recognize surfactant-mediated protection via interfacial modification.Conclude the correct functional category: shear protectant. Verification / Alternative check: Comparative runs with and without F-68 show higher viable cell densities and reduced LDH release under identical aeration/agitation, confirming a protective effect rather than enhanced mass transfer. Why Other Options Are Wrong: (a) Not a nutrient; does not supply carbon, nitrogen, or vitamins. (c) It may indirectly influence mass transfer by altering foam, but it does not directly raise kLa as an oxygen-transfer additive. (d) False because (a) and (c) are incorrect. (e) It is not a coagulant; aggregation would hinder oxygen and nutrient delivery. Common Pitfalls: Confusing F-68 with silicone antifoams or with nutrient supplements; attributing higher titers to improved kLa rather than improved survival. Final Answer: A shear protectant (non-ionic surfactant) to reduce bubble- and agitation-related damage

Question 3

Small-scale turbulence — Which factors influence the Kolmogorov micro-eddy (smallest eddy) size in a stirred bioreactor?

Accepted Answer

Introduction: The Kolmogorov length scale characterizes the smallest eddies in turbulent flow where viscous dissipation dominates. In bioprocessing, matching or exceeding cell size by these eddies can influence shear sensitivity. The question asks which variables govern this micro-scale. Given Data / Assumptions: Turbulent regime or near-transitional with appreciable energy dissipation. Newtonian approximation for concept; non-Newtonian effects change effective viscosity. Homogeneous temperature and composition. Concept / Approach: Kolmogorov length scale eta scales approximately with (nu^3/epsilon)^(1/4), where nu is kinematic viscosity and epsilon is the local energy dissipation rate. Thus, increasing power input (via higher speed or certain impellers) shrinks eta, while higher viscosity enlarges it. Impeller geometry and size map into epsilon distribution throughout the tank. Step-by-Step Solution: Relate stirrer speed and impeller choice to power number and P/V, which set epsilon.Recognize that nu explicitly enters Kolmogorov scaling, so liquid properties matter.Conclude that speed, fluid properties, and impeller design jointly determine micro-eddy size. Verification / Alternative check: Use correlations for P = Np * rho * N^3 * D^5 and estimate epsilon ≈ P/(rho * V). Insert nu and epsilon into eta ≈ (nu^3/epsilon)^(1/4) to see trends consistent with the qualitative answer. Why Other Options Are Wrong: (a), (b), (c) each omit other influential factors; all act together. (e) Tank volume alone does not set eta; local dissipation and viscosity are decisive. Common Pitfalls: Assuming a single global eta when dissipation is nonuniform; ignoring non-Newtonian viscosity in cell culture broths; over-relying on average P/V without considering impeller zone hotspots. Final Answer: All of these

Question 4

Mode of action — The best-described action of Pluronic F-68 (non-ionic surfactant) in a mammalian cell-culture medium is that it primarily...

Accepted Answer

Introduction: Poloxamers such as Pluronic F-68 are amphiphilic block copolymers. Their amphiphilicity makes them surface-active, altering interfacial phenomena that are central to shear-related injury in mammalian cell cultures. The question seeks the primary mechanistic category for F-68's protective effect. Given Data / Assumptions: Aerated, agitated suspension of shear-sensitive cells. F-68 at standard concentrations. No nutrient limitation in the base medium. Concept / Approach: By adsorbing at gas–liquid and cell–liquid interfaces, F-68 changes surface tension and interfacial rheology. This reduces the probability and severity of damaging events during bubble formation and collapse and decreases cell adhesion to interfaces. The mode is interfacial modification, not nutrition, coagulation, or antimicrobial action. Step-by-Step Solution: Identify the interface-centric damage pathway in aerated cultures.Map F-68's amphiphilic adsorption to reduced interfacial stress transmission.Conclude that interfacial property modification is the dominant protective mechanism. Verification / Alternative check: Lower LDH release and higher viability in sparged reactors with F-68 vs controls support a protective interfacial mechanism. Foam behavior changes also indicate surface-activity as the operative mode. Why Other Options Are Wrong: (b) F-68 is not metabolized as a nutrient source. (c) and (d) would hinder suspension health and mass transfer. (e) It has no antibiotic function. Common Pitfalls: Equating F-68 with classic antifoams or antibiotics; ignoring that too high a concentration may affect membrane interactions undesirably. Final Answer: acts on the surface properties of the cells and the culture medium, modifying interfaces to reduce shear damage.

Question 5

Combined non-Newtonian behavior — A fluid whose viscosity increases with increasing stirrer speed (shear rate) and also increases with mixing time under constant shear is best described as what?

Accepted Answer

Introduction: Some complex fluids display both rate-dependent and time-dependent viscosity changes. Correct classification of combined behaviors is important in diagnosing mixing problems (e.g., overloading agitators or poor dispersion) and choosing appropriate processing conditions. Given Data / Assumptions: Apparent viscosity increases as stirrer speed rises (instantaneous rate effect). At roughly constant shear, apparent viscosity also increases with elapsed mixing time (time effect). Temperature and composition are stable during the observation window. Concept / Approach: Shear-rate thickening is termed dilatancy: viscosity rises with increasing shear rate. Time-dependent thickening under constant shear is called rheopexy. A material exhibiting both simultaneously is therefore dilatant and rheopectic. Pseudoplastic and thixotropic describe rate-thinning and time-thinning, respectively, which contradict the stated trends. Newtonian fluids show neither rate nor time dependence beyond trivial effects. Step-by-Step Solution: From the rate effect alone (viscosity ↑ with speed), identify dilatant behavior.From the time effect alone (viscosity ↑ with time at constant shear), identify rheopectic behavior.Combine both to classify the fluid as dilatant, rheopectic. Verification / Alternative check: Plot apparent viscosity versus shear rate to confirm thickening; perform a three-interval rheological test at fixed shear to confirm time-dependent increase. Recovery tests after rest can reveal slow structural buildup consistent with rheopexy. Why Other Options Are Wrong: (a) Newtonian: viscosity independent of rate and time. (b) Pseudoplastic + thixotropic: both thinning trends, opposite to observation. (d) Contradictory pair (dilatant + pseudoplastic) mixes opposing rate behaviors. (e) Yield-stress models address onset of flow, not the described rate/time thickening. Common Pitfalls: Confusing thixotropy with pseudoplasticity; attributing thermal rise to rheopexy; overlooking particle–particle structure buildup that can cause time-thickening in concentrated suspensions. Final Answer: Dilatant, rheopectic fluid

Question 6

Rheology — Definition Check: In a rheopectic (time-dependent shear-thickening) fluid, how does apparent viscosity change under continuous mixing at roughly constant shear conditions?

Accepted Answer

Introduction: Rheopecty is a time-dependent rheological behavior in which a fluid becomes progressively more viscous the longer it is sheared or mixed at a roughly constant shear rate. This question checks whether you can distinguish rheopectic behavior from thixotropy (time-dependent thinning) and from simple shear-rate effects seen in non-time-dependent non-Newtonian fluids. Given Data / Assumptions: Sustained, approximately constant shear rate during mixing. Temperature and composition are not changing appreciably during the observation window. Focus is on time dependence of viscosity, not just shear-rate dependence. Concept / Approach: A Newtonian fluid has viscosity independent of shear rate and time. A dilatant (shear-thickening) fluid shows viscosity increasing with shear rate, but not necessarily with time at a fixed shear rate. Rheopectic fluids, however, exhibit an increase in viscosity with time under constant shear, the mirror image of thixotropic fluids, which show a decrease with time under constant shear. Recognizing the time component is key to identifying rheopecty. Step-by-Step Solution: Identify the behavior of interest: time dependence under sustained shear.Rheopectic definition: viscosity rises as mixing time increases at constant shear.Contrast with thixotropy: viscosity falls with time at constant shear.Conclude: the option stating increasing viscosity with mixing time is correct. Verification / Alternative check: Plot apparent viscosity versus time at a fixed shear rate. A rheopectic fluid shows a monotonically increasing trend during the shearing interval and partial structural persistence after shear removal compared to the pre-shear baseline. Why Other Options Are Wrong: A: Describes ideal Newtonian behavior, not rheopecty. B: Describes thixotropy and immediate recovery, not rheopecty. D: Time-dependent thinning (thixotropy), the opposite of rheopecty. E: Ignores the defining role of shear history in time-dependent fluids. Common Pitfalls: Confusing shear-rate dependence (instantaneous) with time dependence (history effects). Another mistake is assuming rheopecty and dilatancy are the same; dilatancy is rate-dependent thickening, whereas rheopecty is time-dependent thickening at roughly fixed rate. Final Answer: It increases with mixing time under sustained shear (time-dependent thickening).

Question 7

Non-Newtonian Fluids — What changes the viscous behavior most: power input or time? Identify the correct statement about non-Newtonian fluids in mixing operations.

Accepted Answer

Introduction: Unlike Newtonian liquids, many process fluids (polymer solutions, slurries, cell broths) are non-Newtonian. Their apparent viscosity depends on shear rate, and in time-dependent cases, on how long shear is applied. This question distinguishes non-Newtonian responses from Newtonian behavior and other irrelevant analogies. Given Data / Assumptions: Mixing imparts shear that depends on impeller type, speed, and geometry. Shear history (duration) can alter microstructure (e.g., floc breakup, polymer alignment). Temperature is assumed constant for the time frame considered. Concept / Approach: Non-Newtonian fluids show shear-rate dependence (pseudoplastic or dilatant) and may also be time-dependent (thixotropic or rheopectic). Power input affects local shear rates; sustained mixing introduces time-dependent restructuring. Therefore, viscosity can change with both intensity (power) and duration (time) of mixing, unlike Newtonian liquids where viscosity at given temperature/pressure is constant. Step-by-Step Solution: Relate power input to shear rate: higher power generally raises shear rate.Recognize structural effects: aggregates, polymer coils, or cell flocs reorganize over time.Link to viscosity: microstructural changes cause viscosity to vary during and after mixing.Therefore select the option that includes changes with power input and/or time. Verification / Alternative check: Rheometer tests at different shear rates and hold times show viscosity curves that shift with both rate and time for many industrial fluids (e.g., paints, food pastes, biopolymer solutions). Why Other Options Are Wrong: A: Describes Newtonian behavior. C and D: Irrelevant analogies; gases and water do not represent non-Newtonian complexity. E: Temperature matters, but history effects are also critical in non-Newtonian systems. Common Pitfalls: Assuming a single viscosity value applies across all operating conditions. In design, always specify shear rate and, if needed, shear history. Final Answer: Viscosity can change with the level of power input and/or with the duration of mixing (time under shear).

Question 8

Boundary-Layer Flow Over a Flat Plate — For laminar flow, the local Reynolds number threshold Re_x should be less than approximately what value?

Accepted Answer

Introduction: The transition from laminar to turbulent boundary-layer flow over a smooth flat plate occurs when the local Reynolds number, Re_x = (U * x) / ν, exceeds a critical range. Recognizing the typical threshold helps in heat-mass transfer correlations and drag predictions. Given Data / Assumptions: Smooth flat plate in a low-disturbance free stream. Local Reynolds number definition Re_x = U * x / nu, where U is free-stream velocity, x is distance from leading edge, and nu is kinematic viscosity. Typical engineering threshold values are used. Concept / Approach: For many practical cases, laminar flow persists up to Re_x of the order of 5 × 10^5 (sometimes cited between 3 × 10^5 and 1 × 10^6 depending on surface roughness and freestream turbulence). Below this value, boundary-layer assumptions and laminar correlations apply for skin friction and convection coefficients. Step-by-Step Solution: Recall the typical transition criterion for flat-plate boundary layers.Map choices to feasible Reynolds numbers (dimensionless) versus lengths (with units).Select the dimensionless threshold near 5 × 10^5 for laminar validity.Reject options that are not dimensionless or orders-of-magnitude inconsistent. Verification / Alternative check: Empirical data and classic correlations (e.g., Blasius laminar solutions) are applied up to Re_x around several 10^5 before transition and intermittency effects dominate. Why Other Options Are Wrong: A and D: Provide lengths, not Reynolds numbers. B: Far too small; would predict transition almost immediately. E: 5 × 10^3 is too low for typical clean flat-plate transition. Common Pitfalls: Confusing local Reynolds number Re_x with global Re based on plate length; also mixing units into a dimensionless parameter. Final Answer: 5 × 10^5

Question 9

Newtonian Fluids — Which statement best describes viscosity behavior during mixing at constant temperature?

Accepted Answer

Introduction: A Newtonian fluid has a constant viscosity at a given temperature and pressure, independent of shear rate and mixing time. This is a foundational concept used in pump sizing, pipe flow calculations, and reactor design for simple liquids like water and many light oils. Given Data / Assumptions: Temperature and composition are constant. Shear rates fall within the continuum regime where Newtonian behavior applies. No time-dependent structural changes occur in the liquid. Concept / Approach: Newtonian behavior is defined by a linear relationship between shear stress tau and shear rate gamma_dot: tau = mu * gamma_dot, with constant mu. As such, varying the impeller speed (changing shear rate) changes shear stress proportionally, but does not change mu. Time under shear does not alter mu either. Step-by-Step Solution: Identify the defining property: constant viscosity independent of shear rate and time.Relate to mixing: increasing power changes shear rate, but not mu for Newtonian fluids.Exclude structural build-up or breakdown because Newtonian fluids lack microstructure that evolves with shear.Therefore select the option stating constancy with time and power input. Verification / Alternative check: Viscometry with concentric cylinders shows straight-line tau versus gamma_dot passing through the origin for Newtonian liquids; slope equals mu and is independent of the test duration at constant temperature. Why Other Options Are Wrong: B, C, D: Describe non-Newtonian behaviors (shear-thickening, shear-thinning, time dependence). E: Blade-passage pressure fluctuations do not change the intrinsic viscosity. Common Pitfalls: Confusing operational power requirements (which do change with speed) with the material property viscosity (which does not for Newtonian fluids). Final Answer: Viscosity remains essentially constant with time and power input (independent of shear history).

Question 10

Practical Viscometry — Why can a Brookfield rotational viscometer not directly report true shear stress for non-Newtonian fluids?

Accepted Answer

Introduction: Brookfield viscometers are common quality-control tools for paints, foods, and polymer solutions. They measure torque on a rotating spindle immersed in a sample. Although excellent for apparent viscosity trends, they do not directly yield a unique wall shear stress for non-Newtonian fluids without additional assumptions. This question examines why. Given Data / Assumptions: Spindle rotating at a set speed in a cup; torque is measured. Sample may be non-Newtonian and/or time-dependent. Goal is to obtain true shear stress–shear rate data. Concept / Approach: In Brookfield geometries, the shear rate varies spatially around the spindle, and end effects complicate the flow. For Newtonian fluids, conversion factors can relate torque and speed to viscosity. For non-Newtonian fluids, however, the shear rate distribution depends on the constitutive law itself, creating a circular problem. Thus, without an assumed model (e.g., power-law) or empirical calibration, one cannot assign a single true shear stress at a single true shear rate; the instrument provides an apparent viscosity at an indicated speed/spindle setting. Step-by-Step Solution: Recognize what the instrument measures directly: torque and rpm.Note that non-uniform shear rate exists across the gap and near spindle ends.Understand that mapping torque–rpm to tau–gamma_dot requires a constitutive assumption.Conclude that true shear stress cannot be directly determined for non-Newtonian fluids without a model or calibration. Verification / Alternative check: Compare with controlled-stress/controlled-rate rheometers using cone-and-plate geometries that deliver nearly uniform shear rate, enabling direct tau–gamma_dot curves. Brookfield devices trade rigor for robustness and simplicity. Why Other Options Are Wrong: B: Torque is measured accurately; it is not the limitation. C: Instruments report torque and derived apparent viscosity, not just rpm. D: Many setups include temperature control accessories. E: Shear stress is well-defined in fluid mechanics. Common Pitfalls: Assuming QC apparent viscosity equals fundamental rheological viscosity function; always specify spindle, speed, and protocol when reporting Brookfield data. Final Answer: Because the shear rate field around the spindle is non-uniform and not uniquely known, so true shear stress cannot be computed without model assumptions/calibration.

Question 11

Classifying Complex Behavior — If a liquid is both dilatant (shear-thickening) and rheopectic (time-dependent thickening), how does its viscosity respond to speed and to time under shear?

Accepted Answer

Introduction: Some complex fluids can thicken both with higher instantaneous shear rate (dilatancy) and with sustained shear over time (rheopexy). Understanding the combined effect is vital for mixing scale-up, pump selection, and quality control to avoid over-torquing or process upsets. Given Data / Assumptions: Dilatant behavior: viscosity rises with shear rate. Rheopectic behavior: viscosity rises with time under constant shear. Composition and temperature are stable during observation. Concept / Approach: When both behaviors are present, the fluid responds to two independent axes: rate and time. Increasing impeller speed elevates shear rate, raising viscosity immediately (dilatancy). Holding the same speed for longer continues to build structure or alignment that further increases viscosity (rheopexy). The net effect is an upward trend with both variables. Step-by-Step Solution: Hold speed constant and observe viscosity versus time: it rises (rheopexy).Hold time constant and increase speed: viscosity rises (dilatancy).Combine effects: both axes contribute positively to apparent viscosity.Therefore, choose the option stating increases with speed and time. Verification / Alternative check: Rheometer protocols that include rate sweeps and time holds at fixed rates will show increasing curves in both dimensions for such materials. Why Other Options Are Wrong: A, C, D: Each contradicts at least one of the two stated behaviors. E: Ignores rate and time effects central to the classification. Common Pitfalls: Mislabeling thixotropy (time-dependent thinning) as rheopecty. Always confirm definitions before interpreting plant data. Final Answer: Increases with stirring speed and increases with mixing time.

Question 12

Constitutive Behavior — In which class of fluids is the shear stress–shear rate relation non-linear over practical ranges?

Accepted Answer

Introduction: Designing mixers, pumps, and pipelines requires knowing how shear stress tau depends on shear rate gamma_dot. Newtonian fluids have tau = mu * gamma_dot (a straight line through the origin), whereas non-Newtonian fluids deviate from linearity, often dramatically, affecting power draw and pressure drop. Given Data / Assumptions: Continuum regime with isothermal conditions. Definition: Newtonian if viscosity is constant and tau proportional to gamma_dot. Non-Newtonian if viscosity depends on rate and/or time. Concept / Approach: Non-Newtonian classes include shear-thinning, shear-thickening, Bingham plastic, Herschel–Bulkley, thixotropic, and rheopectic behaviors. Each yields a non-linear tau–gamma_dot curve or incorporates a yield stress, invalidating a single constant viscosity description across operating ranges. Step-by-Step Solution: Recognize that Newtonian relationship is linear by definition.Identify non-Newtonian models where tau depends on gamma_dot non-linearly.Conclude non-Newtonian fluids exhibit the non-linear relation of interest.Select the option explicitly naming non-Newtonian fluids. Verification / Alternative check: Rheometer measurements for paints, ketchup, polymer melts, and cell broths show curved tau–gamma_dot plots, unlike water or mineral oils at moderate rates. Why Other Options Are Wrong: A: Newtonian is linear by definition. C and D: Incorrect generalizations. E: Gas behavior is not directly a constitutive fluid class and under most laminar conditions ideal gases behave Newtonian. Common Pitfalls: Using a single viscosity number for complex fluids; always report the shear rate (and time history if relevant). Final Answer: Non-Newtonian fluids

Question 13

Bioreactor Hydrodynamics — During aerobic culture in stirred tanks, which flow regime is generally preferred to maximize gas–liquid mass transfer and mixing without excessive stratification?

Accepted Answer

Introduction: Aerobic bioprocesses require efficient oxygen transfer and uniform nutrient distribution. The hydrodynamic regime strongly influences kLa, bubble dispersion, and mixing time. This question targets the preferred regime in stirred tank reactors (STRs) for aerobic cultures. Given Data / Assumptions: STR with properly sized impellers and baffles. Viscosity within typical microbial broth ranges (not extreme non-Newtonian gel). Shear sensitivity is considered but not overriding. Concept / Approach: Turbulent flow enhances eddy transport and bubble breakup, increasing interfacial area and oxygen transfer rates. Baffles suppress vortexing and improve axial and radial mixing. Operating in a turbulent regime (high Reynolds number) shortens mixing times and reduces concentration gradients compared to laminar or poorly mixed transient regimes. Step-by-Step Solution: Relate oxygen transfer requirements to turbulence: higher interfacial area and renewal rates.Note the role of baffles: prevent swirling, promote top-to-bottom turnover.Recognize that laminar regimes cause stratification and long mixing times.Conclude that controlled turbulence is preferred for aerobic cultivation. Verification / Alternative check: Empirical correlations for kLa increase with power input per volume and superficial gas velocity, both facilitated under turbulent flow. Many industrial STRs target turbulent conditions while limiting excessive shear to protect sensitive cells. Why Other Options Are Wrong: A: Laminar flow yields poor gas dispersion. B: Intermittent mixing cannot maintain uniform oxygen levels. D: Regimes are not equally suitable. E: Plug flow does not describe STR mixing and is unsuitable for uniform aeration in tanks. Common Pitfalls: Equating “more turbulence” with “better” without considering shear damage; optimization balances mass transfer and cell viability. Final Answer: Turbulent flow with adequate impeller design and baffles

Question 14

Turbulence Micro-Scales — How does the Kolmogorov eddy size vary with impeller speed in a stirred tank?

Accepted Answer

Introduction: The Kolmogorov micro-scale characterizes the size of the smallest dissipative eddies in turbulent flow. In mixing, its magnitude influences potential shear damage to delicate materials such as cells or polymer structures. Understanding how it responds to speed helps set safe operating windows. Given Data / Assumptions: Turbulent regime in a baffled stirred tank. Increasing impeller speed increases specific energy dissipation. Fluid properties (density, viscosity) are constant. Concept / Approach: The Kolmogorov length scale eta scales with (nu^3 / epsilon)^(1/4), where nu is kinematic viscosity and epsilon is energy dissipation rate per mass. As impeller speed rises, epsilon increases, so eta decreases. Thus, higher speeds generate smaller dissipative structures and potentially stronger local velocity gradients. Step-by-Step Solution: Recognize relationship: eta ∝ (1 / epsilon)^(1/4).Note that epsilon grows with impeller speed and power input per volume.Infer that eta decreases with increasing speed.Select the option stating a decrease in eddy size with speed. Verification / Alternative check: Power correlations (P = Np * rho * N^3 * D^5) imply higher N increases epsilon in the tank, leading to reduced eta. Measurements in mixing studies confirm smaller micro-scales at higher speeds. Why Other Options Are Wrong: A: Not constant; depends on epsilon. B: Opposite of correct trend. D: Never zero; finite even at low speeds. E: There is a clear dependence via energy dissipation. Common Pitfalls: Assuming micro-scale equals bubble size or impeller diameter; it is a turbulence property tied to dissipation, not a geometric feature. Final Answer: It decreases as stirrer speed increases (smaller dissipative eddies at higher energy dissipation).

Question 15

Shear Sensitivity in Animal Cell Culture — Why are many animal cell cultures not severely impacted by bulk turbulent shear in well-designed bioreactors?

Accepted Answer

Introduction: Animal cells (mammalian, insect) are shear-sensitive due to the absence of rigid walls, yet many cultivations succeed in stirred tanks. The resolution lies in turbulence micro-scales: damaging shear is transmitted when eddy sizes approach or are smaller than the cell, producing high local velocity gradients. If the smallest eddies are still larger than cells, the cells translate with the fluid with less deformation. Given Data / Assumptions: Well-designed bioreactor with appropriate impeller speed and aeration. Kolmogorov eddy size larger than typical cell diameter for chosen operating conditions. No excessive bubble-cell collisions or air-liquid interface exposure (which can also damage cells). Concept / Approach: The Kolmogorov micro-scale sets the lower limit of eddy size. When eta > cell diameter, local shear gradients across a cell are modest, lowering deformation and lysis risk. Microcarriers, shear protectants, and controlled aeration further mitigate stresses arising from bubble breakup and impeller tip vortices. Step-by-Step Solution: Relate eddy size to impeller speed and energy dissipation: higher speed reduces eta.Consider cell size: mammalian cells often 10–20 micrometers.Design operation so eta remains larger than cell size; adjust impeller type and speed accordingly.Conclude that limited shear transfer at the cell scale explains reduced impact. Verification / Alternative check: Empirical observations show improved viability when operating at moderate power input per volume and using spargers/impellers that limit small-scale turbulence and bubble shear; viability drops when eta approaches or falls below cell size. Why Other Options Are Wrong: B: If cells are larger than eta, shear impact generally increases, not decreases. C: Animal cells lack rigid walls. D: Membranes confer fragility, not protection. E: Bubbles can increase shear and interfacial damage; they do not eliminate shear. Common Pitfalls: Ignoring bubble-related stresses and assuming turbulence alone dictates damage; both eddy scale and gas-liquid interactions matter. Over-speeding to boost kLa can inadvertently reduce eta below safe limits. Final Answer: Because typical cell diameters are smaller than the critical turbulent eddy size that transfers damaging shear at the cell scale.

Question 16

In external flow over a smooth flat plate, beyond what minimum local Reynolds number (Re_x) does the boundary layer typically transition to turbulent, under standard conditions?

Accepted Answer

Introduction: Reynolds number is a dimensionless ratio that compares inertial to viscous forces in a fluid flow. For external flow over a flat plate, it is common to characterize transition from laminar to turbulent boundary layers using a critical local Reynolds number, Re_x, based on distance from the leading edge. Knowing the approximate threshold for turbulence helps in estimating skin friction, heat transfer, and mass transfer rates in engineering design. Given Data / Assumptions: Smooth flat plate with uniform approach velocity. Local Reynolds number definition: Re_x = (rho * U * x) / mu. Standard, low free-stream turbulence, no strong pressure gradient. Concept / Approach: Experiments show that on a smooth, nominally two-dimensional flat plate with low free-stream turbulence, transition commonly begins when Re_x is of the order of 3 × 10^5 to 10^6. A widely used design value is about 5 × 10^5. Above this threshold, small disturbances amplify, causing the laminar boundary layer to transition to turbulent, which increases skin friction and heat transfer coefficients but also enhances mixing near the wall. Step-by-Step Solution: 1) Identify the parameter controlling transition: Re_x = (rho * U * x) / mu.2) Recognize canonical threshold used in textbooks and design correlations: about 5 × 10^5.3) Compare options and select the closest standard critical value.4) Conclude that Re_x greater than 5 × 10^5 generally indicates turbulent boundary layer onset.5) Note that higher free-stream turbulence or surface roughness can shift transition earlier (lower Re_x). Verification / Alternative check: Flat-plate correlations for friction factor and Nusselt number often piecewise combine laminar and turbulent formulas with transition near Re_x ≈ 5 × 10^5. Wind tunnel and water channel measurements support this conventional benchmark under low-disturbance conditions. Why Other Options Are Wrong: 5 × 10^-5: Far too small; transition requires very large Re_x, not a tiny number. 10^6: Possible in some conditions, but 5 × 10^5 is the standard minimal value typically cited. 500: Characteristic of creeping or laminar regimes, not transition for external plates. Common Pitfalls: Assuming a single universal critical value regardless of surface finish, pressure gradient, or free-stream turbulence. Transition is sensitive; use 5 × 10^5 as a design reference but validate for specific environments. Final Answer: 5 × 10^5

Question 17

A culture broth is described as both pseudoplastic and thixotropic. What does this combined rheology imply about how apparent viscosity changes with increasing stirrer speed and with mixing time at roughly constant shear?

Accepted Answer

Introduction: Bioprocess broths often deviate from ideal Newtonian behavior. Two common non-Newtonian features are pseudoplasticity (shear-thinning) and thixotropy (time-dependent structural breakdown under shear). When a culture fluid is both pseudoplastic and thixotropic, process engineers must interpret how viscosity responds to both the magnitude of shear and its duration in order to select agitation and aeration settings that protect cells while maintaining mass transfer. Given Data / Assumptions: Pseudoplastic: apparent viscosity decreases as shear rate increases. Thixotropic: apparent viscosity decreases with time under sustained shear and recovers when shear is removed. Mixing conditions are typical for bioreactors (moderate impeller tip speeds and gas rates). Concept / Approach: Shear-thinning arises because polymeric or flocculated microstructures align and offer less resistance at higher shear rates. Thixotropy adds a temporal component: microstructures progressively break down during mixing, lowering viscosity further at a fixed shear rate. Together, these behaviors decrease viscosity both when the stirrer speed is raised and when mixing is continued over time at a given speed. Step-by-Step Solution: 1) Increase stirrer speed ⇒ higher shear rate ⇒ pseudoplastic fluids thin, so viscosity decreases.2) Hold shear approximately constant for longer durations ⇒ thixotropic breakdown reduces viscosity with time.3) Combine both effects to predict trends in process start-up and steady operation.4) Use conservative ramping of speed to avoid sudden shear spikes on sensitive cells.5) Re-check viscosity after rest; recovery indicates structural rebuild. Verification / Alternative check: Rheometer tests with up- and down-shear ramps and time sweeps show hysteresis loops and time-dependent decay of viscosity, confirming both pseudoplasticity and thixotropy. Process torque measurements during start-up similarly decline with time at fixed rpm. Why Other Options Are Wrong: Increases with speed: Opposite of pseudoplastic behavior. Increases with time: Opposite of thixotropic breakdown (that would suggest rheopecty). Decreases with speed but increases with time: Conflicts with thixotropy. Common Pitfalls: Confusing thixotropy with simple shear-thinning only. Ignoring time dependence can lead to overestimating required power input after the broth relaxes to a lower viscosity during a run. Final Answer: decreases with stirring speed and decreases with mixing time

Question 18

A fluid shows an increase in apparent viscosity as the stirrer speed (and shear rate) is increased. Which rheological class best describes this behavior?

Accepted Answer

Introduction: Correctly classifying a fluid's rheology is essential for impeller selection, scale-up, and predicting power draw. When apparent viscosity increases with shear rate, the fluid does not conform to Newtonian or pseudoplastic expectations. Instead, the behavior is characteristic of shear thickening, known as dilatancy, and it has important consequences for mixing and pumping operations. Given Data / Assumptions: Observed trend: viscosity rises as stirrer speed increases. Shear rate is proportional to rotational speed for a given geometry. No mention of time-dependent effects at constant shear. Concept / Approach: In dilatant fluids, increasing shear rate forces particles or microstructures into configurations that resist flow more strongly, elevating viscosity. Examples include concentrated starch suspensions and some dense slurries. This is opposite to pseudoplastic (shear-thinning) fluids and distinct from thixotropy, which is time dependent at constant shear. Step-by-Step Solution: 1) Rule out Newtonian behavior because viscosity would be constant with shear rate.2) Rule out pseudoplastic behavior because that would show decreasing viscosity with shear rate.3) Rule out thixotropy because it refers to time dependence at fixed shear.4) Identify the observed trend as shear thickening.5) Conclude the fluid is dilatant. Verification / Alternative check: Plotting shear stress versus shear rate on log-log scales yields a slope (flow behavior index n) greater than 1 for dilatant fluids in the Ostwald-de Waele model: tau = K * (gamma_dot)^n. Why Other Options Are Wrong: Newtonian: No change of viscosity with shear rate. Pseudoplastic: Viscosity would decrease with shear rate. Thixotropic: Concerns time effects at constant shear, not rate dependence alone. Common Pitfalls: Confusing shear-thickening with simple high-solids viscosity. Even at constant solids, shear-thickening emerges above a critical shear rate, impacting motor sizing and cavitation risk. Final Answer: dilatant

Question 19

Why are filamentous fungal cells generally more sensitive to hydrodynamic shear than bacterial cells in bioreactors?

Accepted Answer

Introduction: Bioprocess design for filamentous fungi (for example, Aspergillus or Penicillium) must account for the organism's morphology and mechanics. Compared with unicellular bacteria, filamentous systems form hyphae and pellets whose size, rigidity, and branching influence how they interact with turbulent eddies and impeller-induced shear. Understanding these differences helps prevent loss of productivity due to excessive fragmentation or lysis. Given Data / Assumptions: Filamentous fungi produce hyphal networks and pellets. Cell wall composition includes chitin and glucans. Typical stirred tanks exhibit a range of eddy sizes and shear rates. Concept / Approach: Larger biological structures experience higher velocity gradients across their dimensions. Chitin-rich walls provide rigidity that can localize stress at branching points, while long hyphae couple more strongly to turbulent eddies. As a result, fungal aggregates are prone to shear-induced breakage, altering pellet size distribution, oxygen transfer, and metabolite profiles. Step-by-Step Solution: 1) Compare characteristic sizes: hyphae and pellets are much larger than single bacterial cells.2) Recognize that larger size increases shear stress differentials across the organism.3) Consider wall composition: chitin contributes stiffness and brittleness under certain conditions.4) Note morphology: branched networks present points of weakness where breakage initiates.5) Conclude that all listed factors contribute to higher shear sensitivity. Verification / Alternative check: Microscopic observations show hyphal fragmentation near impellers and in high-shear zones. Oxygen uptake and viscosity profiles shift as pellet sizes change with agitation, evidencing shear sensitivity when conditions are intensified. Why Other Options Are Wrong: Each individual statement (a), (b), and (c) is valid but incomplete; together they explain the observed sensitivity. Common Pitfalls: Over-agitation to reduce viscosity can harm morphology and productivity. Balancing oxygen transfer with gentle hydrodynamics, or using airlift reactors, can protect filamentous cultures. Final Answer: all of the above

Question 20

At standard temperature and pressure (STP), what is the approximate dynamic viscosity of pure water expressed in SI units?

Accepted Answer

Introduction: Knowing the viscosity of water at reference conditions is fundamental for mixing, pumping, and mass transfer calculations. Dynamic viscosity at STP is frequently used to estimate Reynolds number, friction factors, and diffusional resistances for aqueous systems in bioprocess engineering and fluid mechanics. Given Data / Assumptions: Dynamic viscosity symbol mu with SI unit kg·m^-1·s^-1 (equivalently Pa·s). Reference condition is near 20 °C and 1 atm. Water is Newtonian under these conditions. Concept / Approach: At approximately 20 °C, water's dynamic viscosity is close to 1 mPa·s. In SI base units this equals 0.001 kg·m^-1·s^-1. This benchmark enables quick back-of-the-envelope Reynolds number estimates when combined with typical densities around 1000 kg·m^-3. Step-by-Step Solution: 1) Recall the common reference value: mu_water ≈ 1 mPa·s.2) Convert 1 mPa·s to SI base units: 1 mPa·s = 0.001 Pa·s = 0.001 kg·m^-1·s^-1.3) Compare given options and select the exact SI-equivalent.4) Validate units to avoid dimension errors.5) Apply as needed for Reynolds number estimates. Verification / Alternative check: Engineering handbooks and property tables list water viscosity near 0.001 kg·m^-1·s^-1 at room temperature, decreasing modestly with higher temperature. Why Other Options Are Wrong: 0.005 kg·m^-1·s^-1: Too high for water at STP. 0.003 kg·m^-2·s^-1: Unit is incorrect; dynamic viscosity is not per m^2. 0.1 g·cm^-1·s^-1: This equals 0.01 kg·m^-1·s^-1 after conversion, still too high. Common Pitfalls: Mixing kinematic viscosity (m^2·s^-1) with dynamic viscosity (kg·m^-1·s^-1). Always check units before plugging into correlations. Final Answer: 0.001 kg·m^-1·s^-1

Fluid Flow Questions